Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In a landmark judgment that reiterates the supremacy of child welfare over personal law in custody battles, the Supreme Court of India has granted custody of a minor child to her aunt, countering the biological father's opposition. The court's decision emphasises that it is the “welfare of the child and not the personal law or the statute which has paramount consideration".

The bench, comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal, adjudicated upon a contentious custody dispute involving a minor girl who had been living with her aunt from the tender age of about 3-4 months. Initially, the child was placed with her aunt by the biological father, who felt overwhelmed by the responsibility of caring for twins. However, as time passed, the father sought to reclaim custody.

Underscoring the child's right to stability and her clear desire to remain in the environment where she was raised, the court observed, “We find that the welfare of the child lies with her custody with the appellants and respondent No. 10 (the aunt). This is coupled with the fact that even she also wishes to live there".

The father's case, rooted in Muslim law, argued that the aunt, having married an outsider, was ineligible to retain the child's custody. It was stated that under the Mohammedan Law, “It is only Kafalah, in terms of which only custody can be given to another person, however, the child does not sever relations with biological parents.” This led him to appeal before the Orissa High Court, which initially ruled in his favour. However, this decision was temporarily halted by the Supreme Court in June 2023, pending a final judgment.

The Supreme Court meticulously evaluated the nuances of the case, differentiating between custody and guardianship. The bench highlighted that while the father may retain natural guardianship rights, the child's custody could be more beneficially placed elsewhere, especially when the child's welfare is at stake. The court noted, “At present, the child is grown up. She is 14 years of age. She is capable of forming an opinion about her best interest. The welfare of the child is of paramount consideration and not the rights of the parties. Stability is most important factor as any order passed by this Court may dislodge the child from the family where she is settled for the last 14 years. Her transplantation at this stage may not be in her best interest.”

"The statutory provisions dealing with the custody of the child under any personal law cannot and must not supersede the paramount consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor," the court affirmed, referencing previous judgments like Ashish Ranjan v. Anupam Tandon. This principle reinforces that in the domain of child custody, legal statutes and personal laws must bow to the best interests of the child.

The court further observed, "The child is not a chattel or a ball that is bounced to and fro. Welfare of the child is the focal point." This statement aligns with the court's stance that the emotional, physical, and educational welfare of the child surpasses all other legal considerations.

The Supreme Court's decision was significantly influenced by the child's own wishes. During a private interaction with the justices, the child expressed her contentment and happiness with her current living arrangement, emphasising her bond with her aunt's family and her desire to remain with them. This direct interaction played a crucial role in the court's final verdict.

Rejecting the biological father's contentions, the court noted the lack of a compelling reason to disrupt the child's stable environment. Despite the legal arguments presented, it was found that the child's best interests lay in continuing her life with the aunt, where she has grown and thrived for nearly 14 years.

Case Title: SHAZIA AMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER Vs THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS